Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue May 15, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John Lawless, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Charles Biggs, Paul Conte, Rob Handy, Jana Jackson, guests. ABSENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Phillip Hudspeth. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS I. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: OPPORTUNITY SITING PROCESS MOTION 1 Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved that one FTE would address Opportunity Siting options: 1. Study only City-owned and school district properties. (examples: downtown sites, housing land bank, old school sites). 5. New Process (to be done independently of Options 1-4): Create new process where opportunity sites are identified by private sector, reviewed and analyzed by neighborhood organization, and approved by Planning Commission. Furthermore, an indication of the impact of population or unit gain or loss would be part of the process. Mr. Belcher withdrew his motion, and Mr. Hledik withdrew his second to the motion. MOTION 2 Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to recommend that the Menu of Approaches for Opportunity Siting and Compatibility Standards for Infill Development document be recommended to the Budget Committee. The concept covered under one FTE would include identification and study of a limited initial list of one or two opportunity sites, and development of selection criteria to be applied later, a new process to identify sites, and an estimate of the impact on populations. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 15, 2006 Page 1  MOTION 3 Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to seek funding from the Budget Committee for one additional FTE, plus $20,000. The primary responsibilities of this position would be to work with the entire community to help define “appropriate infill” and “compatibility,” appropriate infill standards, and to prioritize neighborhoods most at risk from infill development. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 15, 2006 Page 2  Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—The Atrium—99 West 10th Avenue May 15, 2006 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John Lawless, members; Mike Sullivan, ex officio; Susan Muir, Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Works Department; Charles Biggs, Paul Conte, Rob Handy, Jana Jackson, guests. ABSENT: Mitzi Colbath, President; Phillip Hudspeth. Mr. Duncan convened the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission at 11:30 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Paul Conte, 1461 W. 10th Avenue, said that there was not clear description of Opportunity Siting available to the public. He said the City Council motion of October 26, 2005 referred to population estimates whereas the May 24, 2006 document entitled Menu of Approaches for Opportunity Siting and Compatibility Standards for Infill Development Prepared for Eugene City Council by Eugene Planning Commission used the terms population target and population distribution. He suggested the term population estimates be used. Mr. Conte recommended that the commission prioritize infill standards prior to submission to the City Council. He said the issue had been discussed by the Neighborhood Leaders Council and the Jefferson Westside Neighbors (JWN). I. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: OPPORTUNITY SITING PROCESS Ms. Muir stated that, after talking with Ms. Colbath and Mr. Duncan, the staff recommendation was that the Planning Commission was not ready to move forward with a recommendation to the City Council the following week, as scheduled. She expressed concern that the commission was not prepared with a firm recommendation to take to the Council. She added that dates on the Council’s calendar were open in June and July. She said when the item was originally scheduled for a joint meeting with the City Council, there was a desire to have a discussion with the Council and Budget Committee to ensure that the project was funded in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006-2007. Subsequently, funding had been allocated for Opportunity Siting in the proposed budget and actual costs for the project have been refined. Ms. Muir recommended that the Planning Commission communicate in writing to the Budget Committee that the commission was interested in ensuring that the sufficient funding was available to commence the Opportunity Siting work as outlined in the draft Menu of Approaches for Opportunity Siting and Compatibility Standard for Infill Development document. She understood there was support from the Budget Committee on the package in the budget document that included funding for one full time equivalent (FTE) and $50,000 one time money. Mr. Duncan stated that he was concerned that the Planning Commission had not moved forward MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 15, 2006 Page 1 quickly enough last week to formulate a recommendation that would meet the direction of the City Council. He proposed that the commission prepare a proposal to take to the Council in September that requested sufficient funding to accomplish the work that had been directed by the Council. Citing a desire to move forward to prepare a recommendation for the Budget Committee, Mr. Duncan facilitated a discussion on the Opportunity Siting, Compatibility Standards for Infill and Population Distribution menu items. Mr. Belcher asked if removing the Planning Commission from the May 24, 2006 City Council agenda was a done deal. He also asked if the decision was made by a City Council vote or one made by the City Manager and Mayor. Ms. Muir replied that other dates were available for a joint meeting. She added that it was a City Manager and Mayor discussion about when the item was scheduled, and a City Council vote to get the item on the agenda. Ms. Muir suggested that the Planning Commission focus on a recommendation to the Budget Committee regarding how much financial support should go to the program, using the Menu of Approaches as a starting point. The commission discussed a variety of options for funding an additional fte and operations. Summarizing the discussion, Mr. Duncan suggested that a work plan for one FTE plus $50,000 be proposed to the City Council as a preliminary step. He noted consensus from the commissioners. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved that one FTE would address Opportunity Siting options: 1. Study only City-owned and school district properties. (examples: downtown sites, housing land bank, old school sites). 5. New Process (to be done independently of Options 1-4): Create new process where opportunity sites are identified by private sector, reviewed and analyzed by neighborhood organization, and approved by Planning Commission. Furthermore, an indication of the impact of population or unit gain or loss would part of the process. Mr. Lawless stated that City Councilor Bettman had said her intent was to consider all publicly owned properties. Mr. Belcher stated that the intent of his motion was to identify government owned properties excluding parks lands, to further identify one site that could be used for a successful demonstration project. Mr. Yeiter stated that menu item number 5 was intended to be used as a place holder for the alternate path process as originally defined. Mr. Sullivan asked if the intent of the motion was to conduct a series of sorts on a large number MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 15, 2006 Page 2 of sites to identify potential sites. Mr. Lawless saw menu number 5 as a process rather than embellishment on one of the other choices. He asserted that a few sites could be identified as likely candidates. Mr. Hledik encouraged not limiting the review process to only publicly owned properties. Mr. Belcher iterated his opinion that focusing on only publicly owned properties, although directed to do so by Councilor Bettman, was a limiting factor. He supported looking at privately owned sites. Mr. Sullivan asserted that many properties were not in optimal locations in good commercial areas, or they would already be developed. Mr. Hledik asserted that the learning experience with a demonstration project would be a valuable one. Although he preferred to look at a broad range of properties, he doubted there were sufficient resources to do so. Mr. Duncan believed with items one and five identified in the motion, the commission was saying it was open to other potential sites that may not be apparent at the present time. He added there would be sufficient interest in the community to move forward on sites that had potential. Several clarifying questions related to use of only public property or both public and private property to the motion were asked. Mr. Belcher withdrew his motion, and Mr. Hledik withdrew his second to the motion. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to recommend that the Menu of Approaches for Opportunity Siting and Compatibility Standards for Infill Development document be recommended to the Budget Committee. The concept covered under one FTE would include a new process where opportunity sites were identified by the private sector, reviewed and analyzed by neighborhood organization, and approved by Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Duncan facilitated a discussion related to how a second fte could be used in the Opportunity Siting, Compatibility Standards for Infill, and Population Distribution processes. Mr. Lawless said he wanted to ask for funding to do something meaningful immediately, and also to ask that this initial project occur concurrently with other ongoing projects, to enable tracking of the entire process. Mr. Duncan concurred with Mr. Lawless, adding that the commission had the ability to use a mix of broad based and targeted projects. He expressed concern about who would define at risk neighborhoods, and how at risk neighborhoods would be defined and prioritized. Mr. Belcher said there was a need to look broadly at compatible and incompatible infill, as well as looking at specific examples where infill had not worked in the community. He asked if this process would preclude neighborhoods that had identified specific problems they wanted to work on, citing the request of the JWN for a refinement plan change. He expressed concern that the MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 15, 2006 Page 3 Opportunity Siting process would cause a lengthy delay for the JWN request. Mr. Yeiter said possibly the JWN project could be folded into the Opportunity Siting process. However, if a neighborhood asked for refinement plan work, refinement plan updates on significant amendments were low priorities at the present time. Mr. Lawless opined that the study as outlined had the purpose of reviewing physical characteristics, transportation qualities and compatibility issues. He did not want to preclude other changes from occurring outside of the study. Mr. Lawless asked what it would cost to conduct a comprehensive look at compatibility standards. Mr. Nystrom said the characteristics and other issues for each neighborhood was a challenging and mammoth undertaking. Identifying common denominators could be a beginning point. Mr. Yeiter noted that various elements of the study could be undertaken over a period of time, which would have an impact on the number staff required to complete a project. In response to Mr. Duncan, Mr. Nystrom replied that stop gap measures needed to be considered as a time factor in any project, but some common themes could be addressed at the front end of the project. In response to a question from Mr. Belcher, Ms. Muir said there had been no response to a recent Request for Proposals (RFP) for a consultant for public scoping of the citizen involvement component of the updates to the land use code. She said the RFP would be reissued later this year. Mr. Yeiter suggested that the one FTE currently in the budget would perform basic work for Opportunity Siting, but left no funding in the budget for other items identified by the Planning Commission. Therefore, one additional fte would provide staffing to begin addressing solutions. Mr. Belcher suggested adding inclusion of estimates of potential impact to populations. There was a brief discussion about how one time money could be used for professional services such as architects, graphic artists, geographic information system specialists, or other purposes in the process. Mr. Nystrom noted the public process was time consuming and expressed concerns about the scope of work that could reasonably be accomplished in the first year. Mr. Duncan noted consensus to support development of a comprehensive program on infill that included defining good and bad infill with individual neighborhoods. Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved to seek funding from the Budget Committee for one additional FTE plus $20,000. Ms. Muir stated that the Budget Committee was meeting on May 15 and May 17, 2006, at which time a recommendation would be developed for consideration by the City Council. The City Council was meeting on June 12, 2006 to take final action on the FY 2006-2007 budget. Ms. Muir recommended forwarding a letter to the Budget Committee for consideration at the May 17, 2006 committee meeting, followed by scheduling a joint meeting with the City Council at the end of June or in conjunction with the annual joint meeting at which time the Planning MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 15, 2006 Page 4 Commission’s annual work program was reviewed. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Carroll opined that there should be emphasis noted in the cover letter to the Budget Committee that this was a high priority work program item for the Planning Commission that both opportunity siting and compatibility standards for infill needed to be done. Mr. Duncan noted consensus to support Mr. Carroll’s concern. Ms. Muir stated that staff would draft a letter to the Budget Committee for consideration at the Budget Committee’s May 17, 2006 meeting. Ms. Muir said time was available on the City Council agenda on June 28 and July 26, 2006. Mr. Duncan encouraged commissioners to talk with their City Council buddies prior to the next joint meeting with the Council. Mr. Nystrom reminded commissioners that public comment would be accepted on the Planning Commission work program. II. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff None. B. Other Items from Commission None. Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:30 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:\2006\planning and development department\planning division\planning commission\pc060515.doc MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 15, 2006 Page 5